So will he be Michael Vick, Vince Young, or Akili Smith? Not enough information on Tebow yet to make that comparison.
So will he be Michael Vick, Vince Young, or Akili Smith? Not enough information on Tebow yet to make that comparison.
I think Culpepper might be a better comparision and we saw what he was without Moss.
Originally Posted by teamselig
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change, the realist adjusts the sails.
William Arthur Ward
I think Young is a good comp. They were almost identical in their games. Newton is such a good athlete you can never count him out. So much of his game is running and there's yet to be a runner of his style that's been able to translate that into consistent NFL success.
Vick is much different than the others because his running style is much more like a running back, with quick cuts and acceleration. Guys like Vince Young and Newton, are much more open field runners and you just don't get in the open field much as an NFL QB. His outlook is all about whether or not he can be a good passer in the pocket. He didn't show a whole lot either way on that. That offense didn't require him to make the types of passes you have to make to be a good NFL QB. I think he'll be a project for whoever drafts him, and I wouldn't want to be the fan of a team who spends a high pick on him. I also think there are real character issues with this guy beneath the surface of his big smile he puts on for the cameras.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
I don't think any of the above are a particularly fair comparison.
He's certainly not going to be like Michael Vick. He isn't nearly as explosive of an athlete as Vick and he's got about six inches and forty pounds on Vick. While Vick can make plays with his feet, I see Newton being more of a guy who uses his athletic ability to avoid pressure and keep plays alive.
Similarly I don't see him being Vince Young. They're about the same height but Cam is significantly heavier and IMHO has a better arm / throwing mechanics. They did come from a similar college offense so I could see Newton going through a similar learning curve (struggles) but I think Cam is a better pro prospect than Young was.
Physically speaking he reminds me a lot of Ben Roethlisberger. Whether or not he's able to become anywhere near as good of a QB remains to be seen but I think the physical tools are there to be a successful QB at some point in the future. The real question is how well he'll transition to the pro-style offense and whether or not he's got the ability to read coverage and react to complex defenses. He's certainly a bit of a project but I think he has the potential to be a good pro QB.
Last edited by nmculbreth; 01-14-2011 at 01:29 PM.
This is pretty much spot on IMHO. He could've used another 14 starts in that regard.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
That's an issue that would concern me. Akili Smith, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf--there have been quite a few college QBs with limited playing experience who washed out as pro QBs.
"Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."
Just for comparison sake:
Newton 2010: 2854 Passing Yards 66% Completion 30-7 1473 Rush Yards 20TD
V. Young 2005: 3036 Passing Yards 65% Completion 26-10 1050 Rush Yards 12 TD
J. Russell 2006: 3129 Passing Yards 67% Completion 28-8 142 Rush Yards 1 TD
A. Smith 1998: 3763 Passing Yards 58% Completion 30-7 184 Rush Yards 4 TD
Roethlisberger 2003: 4486 Passing Yards 69% Completion 37-10 111 Rush Yards 3 TD
I'm not sure how these stats are particularly relevant to the discussion about what type of NFL quarterback that Cam Newton will be. The fact that Auburn and Texas ran a similar offense and Young and Newton ended up with similar numbers doesn't mean that they have identical skill sets. Conversely the fact that Auburn and Miami ran very different offenses doesn't mean that Roethlisberger and Newton don't have similar skill sets.
I guess in some ways that was my point. There are differences there, but in many ways those stats are very similar and all of those QBs have or had different levels of NFL success.
I guess what sticks out to me most is how many more yards Newton ran for. Now that is obviously based around his offense, but a big knock on Vince Young has been his adjustment from a run first to a pass first QB. Vick had the same knock too early on before his "troubles". That is where I don't like the Roethlisberger comparison because he never had to overcome that.
I do actually think Newton is a better passing QB than many of the names mentioned. I think Culpepper is the most apt NFL comparison, though Newton is a better runner than Daunte was.
I don't know if Newton will ever be a star in the NFL, but I think he'll fare better than Young, Russell, Akili, etc.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Newton really hasn't been a run first QB though and he has been very effective in the pocket. He had one of his poorer games against Oregon which might be coloring perspectives. I can't remember him missing that long ball like he did with Adams all season for instance.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6665301
"We knew we had done nothing wrong during the recruiting process," Chizik wrote in "All In: What it Takes to Be the Best."
"If we'd had any level of concern regarding Cameron's eligibility, we would not have put him on the field and risked forfeiting games for playing an ineligible player," he wrote.[COLOR="Red"]"My complaint comes when some individuals in the media engage in irresponsible journalism that destroys someone's reputation," the coach wrote. "It takes a long time to repair a reputation, and sometimes that damage is impossible to recover from. In this case there were a lot of assumptions being made and criticisms being spun out of those assumptions;"[[/SIZE]
Last edited by jojo; 06-16-2011 at 01:48 PM.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
LOL What on earth would a coach say? Isn't quoting this like quoting a denial from Bernie Madoff when he was being investigated?
You taking his word for it is as big an assumption as there is. This strong rhetoric just seems like a hardline defensive approach.
The fact is, money WAS solicited, something that the original report indicated. Since that report was given credibility, the rest is pretty safe to believe. It didn't yield anything to this point with the NCAA, but it's far from assumption. But I guess Chizik saying so makes it so? It should be pointed out, Chizik also once called the allegations of the solicitation "pure garbage." So he's already lost some credibility on the subject.
Last edited by Brutus; 06-16-2011 at 02:26 PM.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
That's actually one of the fairest, most accurate characterizations of the media's handling of the investigation into MSU's recruitment into Cam and the arguments some have made that Auburn actually cheated despite zero evidence to support such a huge leap and the fact that the NCAA ruled that Cam was eligible to play at Auburn (essentially ruling that there was no reason to argue that Auburn's recruitment broke any rules).
Again, that's actually one of the fairest, most accurate characterizations of the media's handling of the investigation into MSU's recruitment into Cam and the arguments some have made that Auburn actually cheated despite zero evidence to support such a huge leap and the fact that the NCAA ruled that Cam was eligible to play at Auburn (essentially ruling that there was no reason to argue that Auburn's recruitment broke any rules). In other words...those who so cavalierly sprinted ahead of the facts ended up being very wrong in their conclusions.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
You can say that again...
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
